Frankly if someone used a religious framework to justify why something is good/bad it’s safe to say a lot of people will take away from it the exact opposite.
If atheism is true, morality doesn’t exist. Most Atheists still feel some sense of mortality because we do have a knowledge of objective right and wrong. Although one can be misled into thinking some right things are wrong and some wrong things are right, without an infallible moral framework to turn to.
I think sinfulness and immorality are usually one and the same but perhaps you’re right and I’m overreaching. I’m happy with calling it morally wrong. 👍
No def not, most people I know and myself would be killed under any religious moral system because their entire existence is sin because that’s what’s written, but they’re some of the kindest, most humanist and sane people I’ve met, they just aren’t religious because most religions would want them dead.
Often they have individual moral frameworks that are some variation of the marxism-adjacent maximization of happiness/minimization of suffering or nietzchean fulfillment of potential.
I also have no problem calling it sinful either if it’s a useful shorthand tbf, it’s just words after all.
The punishment for sin is death. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It’s mercy that God’s let you live this long. How shall we escape?
No def not, most people I know and myself would be killed under any religious moral system because their entire existence is sin because that’s what’s written
They’re right, except you can set it to “everyone I know”
Any religious moral system that says God allows and wants you to murder kind, sane and humane folks can be safely disregarded. What the fuck, lol. Nobody who fears God’s judgment (which is a basic prerequisite to call yourself a monotheist!) can argue for that or act that way; how would you explain that shit to Him? But, you know, people… I mean, the Crusades were framed through “Deus Vult” (and the Zionist neo-Crusades are more or less excused the same way, right?), some things don’t change and all of those bloodthirsty murderers are burning in Hell, I’m pretty sure. 😔
Sin is a religious construct, not an ethical one. One religion considers something a sin, another considers it a sacrament. Unless one is forcing compliance with a single specific religion at a state level it’s not particularly useful.
I’d argue that morality is also a construct but the distinguishing factor is that it is not tied to a specific religion and all the baggage associated with it (such as religion as identity, in-groups, that sort of thing).
My POV: morality is (largely?) innate, and if I lined up 100 people and we really went full Socratic method we’d see it, with only a few ridiculously disturbed and confused people arguing against whatever we acknowledged. It’s just complex, because some things are very case-to-case and people just want moral rulings under 10 words because complexity is scary and they lack discernment (the Germanic “a rule is a rule is a rule and I follow it because I’m a good boy” attitude comes to mind, for instance, which can easily end up in “I was just following orders, I was being a good boy!”), but the vast majority of people are reasonable enough we’d come to an understanding given enough time… in the vacuum of propaganda and brainwashing, ofc.
Morally wrong yes, sinful no.
Frankly if someone used a religious framework to justify why something is good/bad it’s safe to say a lot of people will take away from it the exact opposite.
How do you have something being morally wrong without a religious framework
Are you suggesting that all atheists are immoral?
If atheism is true, morality doesn’t exist. Most Atheists still feel some sense of mortality because we do have a knowledge of objective right and wrong. Although one can be misled into thinking some right things are wrong and some wrong things are right, without an infallible moral framework to turn to.
Your second sentence contradicts the rest of your comment.
My second statement is asserting that their is mortality and that atheism is false, that some atheists being moral is evidence against atheism
A cultist who cares about evidence? So many contradictions.
What?
I think sinfulness and immorality are usually one and the same but perhaps you’re right and I’m overreaching. I’m happy with calling it morally wrong. 👍
No def not, most people I know and myself would be killed under any religious moral system because their entire existence is sin because that’s what’s written, but they’re some of the kindest, most humanist and sane people I’ve met, they just aren’t religious because most religions would want them dead.
Often they have individual moral frameworks that are some variation of the marxism-adjacent maximization of happiness/minimization of suffering or nietzchean fulfillment of potential.
I also have no problem calling it sinful either if it’s a useful shorthand tbf, it’s just words after all.
The punishment for sin is death. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It’s mercy that God’s let you live this long. How shall we escape?
I genuinely cannot tell if you are being facetious or not.
They’re right, except you can set it to “everyone I know”
That really didn’t clarify anything 😂
All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.
Any religious moral system that says God allows and wants you to murder kind, sane and humane folks can be safely disregarded. What the fuck, lol. Nobody who fears God’s judgment (which is a basic prerequisite to call yourself a monotheist!) can argue for that or act that way; how would you explain that shit to Him? But, you know, people… I mean, the Crusades were framed through “Deus Vult” (and the Zionist neo-Crusades are more or less excused the same way, right?), some things don’t change and all of those bloodthirsty murderers are burning in Hell, I’m pretty sure. 😔
Sin is a religious construct, not an ethical one. One religion considers something a sin, another considers it a sacrament. Unless one is forcing compliance with a single specific religion at a state level it’s not particularly useful.
I’d argue that morality is also a construct but the distinguishing factor is that it is not tied to a specific religion and all the baggage associated with it (such as religion as identity, in-groups, that sort of thing).
My POV: morality is (largely?) innate, and if I lined up 100 people and we really went full Socratic method we’d see it, with only a few ridiculously disturbed and confused people arguing against whatever we acknowledged. It’s just complex, because some things are very case-to-case and people just want moral rulings under 10 words because complexity is scary and they lack discernment (the Germanic “a rule is a rule is a rule and I follow it because I’m a good boy” attitude comes to mind, for instance, which can easily end up in “I was just following orders, I was being a good boy!”), but the vast majority of people are reasonable enough we’d come to an understanding given enough time… in the vacuum of propaganda and brainwashing, ofc.
That’s why there’s only one true religion.
Snake charming?